There are 70 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The Sporting News 50 Greatest Coaches

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I think Walsh is punished because he didn't have the longevity that others on that list had. That being said, he's about 10-15 slots too low, IMO.

or 23
  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Even Nellie could have won with the talent that Jackson had.

I wouldn't go that far. Nellie could have won with the Jordan bulls, but Nellie would have no idea what do with Shaq. He probably would have traded him.
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Even Nellie could have won with the talent that Jackson had.

I wouldn't go that far. Nellie could have won with the Jordan bulls, but Nellie would have no idea what do with Shaq. He probably would have traded him.

LOL Ya probably. However, putting Jackson at #4 all time is just a complete and utter joke.
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Even Nellie could have won with the talent that Jackson had.

I wouldn't go that far. Nellie could have won with the Jordan bulls, but Nellie would have no idea what do with Shaq. He probably would have traded him.

LOL Ya probably. However, putting Jackson at #4 all time is just a complete and utter joke.

The guy does have the most NBA titles in his respective sport's history.
  • Money
  • Member
  • Posts: 2,156
Originally posted by dman:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Even Nellie could have won with the talent that Jackson had.

I wouldn't go that far. Nellie could have won with the Jordan bulls, but Nellie would have no idea what do with Shaq. He probably would have traded him.

LOL Ya probably. However, putting Jackson at #4 all time is just a complete and utter joke.

The guy does have the most NBA titles in his respective sport's history.

Yes.. and he has coached the greatest players. I would not put a coach in the top 10 unless he has built a team from a losing situation, or taken medicore teams to great heights. Jackosn never did this. He also took Tex Winters triangle offense - he didnt develop it. Again, just a joke that he is rated fourth.
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Even Nellie could have won with the talent that Jackson had.

I wouldn't go that far. Nellie could have won with the Jordan bulls, but Nellie would have no idea what do with Shaq. He probably would have traded him.

LOL Ya probably. However, putting Jackson at #4 all time is just a complete and utter joke.

The guy does have the most NBA titles in his respective sport's history.

Yes.. and he has coached the greatest players. I would not put a coach in the top 10 unless he has built a team from a losing situation, or taken medicore teams to great heights. Jackosn never did this. He also took Tex Winters triangle offense - he didnt develop it. Again, just a joke that he is rated fourth.

Pete, can you really place Phil above Walsh?
Originally posted by IWASATTHECATCH:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Even Nellie could have won with the talent that Jackson had.

I wouldn't go that far. Nellie could have won with the Jordan bulls, but Nellie would have no idea what do with Shaq. He probably would have traded him.

LOL Ya probably. However, putting Jackson at #4 all time is just a complete and utter joke.

The guy does have the most NBA titles in his respective sport's history.

Yes.. and he has coached the greatest players. I would not put a coach in the top 10 unless he has built a team from a losing situation, or taken medicore teams to great heights. Jackosn never did this. He also took Tex Winters triangle offense - he didnt develop it. Again, just a joke that he is rated fourth.

Pete, can you really place Phil above Walsh?

Originally posted by nipplehead:
Or, as it should be called, "Why the Sporting News Is Not a Credible Source"

Or even better, "f**k This Publication."

http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2009-07-29/sporting-news-50-greatest-coaches-all-time

According to this list, Bill Walsh is only the 26th greatest coach of all time. Behind such luminaries as Pat Summitt.

No, even worse is that he's considered the 9th greatest NFL coach of all time. Behind Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Paul Brown, George Halas, Chuck Noll, Joe Gibbs, Tom Landry, and Bill Belichick.

Guy dominates an entire decade, creates an entirely new offense, manages to neutralize Lawrence Taylor for a period of time, and somehow is considered worse than Belichick.

f**k The Sporting News.

/rantover


This list is terrible. Walsh should be up in the top 10 at least. If you look at what he did for the NFL as a whole he is more worthy then the rest. If only he didn't quit so early. They would be more titles and there would be no question that the niners were the best sports franchise in history.
What's with the hate for Belichik. The guy has 2 Super Bowls as a coordinator and 3 as a Head Coach. I wouldn't put him over Walsh but he's definetily in my top 7.

I know, I know. Spygate. That's blown out of proportion.
Originally posted by IWASATTHECATCH:
Pete, can you really place Phil above Walsh?

As much as I'd like to irritate you guys by saying yes...no, I wouldn't. But it would be very, very close because there's something to be said for sustained dominance, which is the only thing lacking from Walsh's resume since he only coached us for 10 years.

Walsh helped develop (or more accurately, further) an offense that changed the sport on both sides of the ball, and his coaching tree is incredible. Although he only coached for a decade, the mark he made is still part of the game today. Can't say that about Jackson.

However, too many fans just brush aside what Jackson's done, IMO. 10 titles in 18 years of coaching. 12 conference titles. "But he had great players". A lot of coaches have great players and don't win, and Walsh had great players too. Amongst Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, & Shaquille O'Neal, only one of them won a title without him (Shaq), and that was as the 2nd best player on a team with a HOF coach as well. (Pat Riley)

When Jackson replaced Doug Collins, the Bulls got better. By his second year, they were NBA champions, after consistently being the whipping boys of the Pistons & Celtics. (most people forget this) He got Jordan to buy into a system that took the ball out of his hands a lot more than Collins' offense, and into Pippen's. He also surrounded himself with quality assistant coaches, and by all reports knew how to delegate. Not all coaches can surrender their ego to that extent.

When he joined the Lakers they were the most talented roster in the league, yet had imploded in the playoffs in 3 consecutive years. Never even got the Finals. In his first year in LA, we went 67-15 and won the title. He successfully managed two alpha dogs to the tune of 3 consecutive NBA titles. If it was that easy...why couldn't other people do it?

Then you have his 2nd stint in LA. The Lakers were coming off of a 38-44 season, and the only significant roster change was Caron Butler for Kwame Brown (a downgrade in anyone's mind)...then the Lakers won 45 games and took the Suns to 7 games. Once the Lakers got a legit #2 guy (initially Bynum, and then Gasol after the trade), the Lakers were back in the Finals, and winning it all the next year. And Gasol isn't on par with Shaq, Kobe, MJ, or Pippen.

I think it's hard to differentiate Walsh's legacy as a talent evaluator from his legacy as a coach. He had great players too, but he brought them in. While he deserves credit for that, you can't draw a parallel to Phil Jackson, because Jackson never had that responsibility...and we are comparing COACHES here...not GMs.

Phil ain't quite Walsh, but don't sell him short. IMO, it's a lot more difficult to go from good to great than it is to go from bad to good. Phil's done that better than anyone.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:

As much as I'd like to irritate you guys by saying yes...no, I wouldn't. But it would be very, very close because there's something to be said for sustained dominance, which is the only thing lacking from Walsh's resume since he only coached us for 10 years.
One of Walsh's' biggest regrets was leaving SF too soon. But that hardly curtails his laundry-list of achievements.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

However, too many fans just brush aside what Jackson's done, IMO. 10 titles in 18 years of coaching. 12 conference titles. "But he had great players". A lot of coaches have great players and don't win, and Walsh had great players too. Amongst Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, & Shaquille O'Neal, only one of them won a title without him (Shaq), and that was as the 2nd best player on a team with a HOF coach as well. (Pat Riley)

When looking at just the numbers (10titles/18yrs/12ct), it is a ridiculous achievement. But, the "great players" argument does have some merit. The Zen Master has proven that he can manage the Super Egos of the NBA greatest players. (Better than anyone, regardless of sport, for sure.) But, does Phil teach anything skill-related the way Walsh taught foot-work for the 3, 5 & 7-step drops? Has Phil innovated anything? (not calling timeouts doesn't count. ) Also, Walsh was a few decades ahead of the NFL with his Bill Walsh Minority Fellowship Program.


Originally posted by LA9erFan:

When he joined the Lakers they were the most talented roster in the league, yet had imploded in the playoffs in 3 consecutive years. Never even got the Finals. In his first year in LA, we went 67-15 and won the title. He successfully managed two alpha dogs to the tune of 3 consecutive NBA titles. If it was that easy...why couldn't other people do it?

How many other people had the chance to coach Kobe and Shaq on the same squad? Or Jordan/Pippen? Now figure in that Walsh set a foundation for success that allowed his successor to win multiple championships, too. (Yes, '94 was massively aided by FA acquisitions, but the foundation was all BW.) How many coaches in any sport can say that? Switzer was lucky to have won one with Jimmy Johnson's team, but UCLA stopped winning titles when Wooden left. Lombardi's' Packers stopped winning too. Knoll's Steelers? Walsh's genius/greatness/impact is massively larger than "10 seasons." Will they say that about Phil?


Originally posted by LA9erFan:

I think it's hard to differentiate Walsh's legacy as a talent evaluator from his legacy as a coach. He had great players too, but he brought them in. While he deserves credit for that, you can't draw a parallel to Phil Jackson, because Jackson never had that responsibility...and we are comparing COACHES here...not GMs.

I disagree that Phil's case should be aided in this discussion by limiting the credit Walsh has earned by doing more. (ie; Evaluating/drafting)

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Phil ain't quite Walsh, but don't sell him short. IMO, it's a lot more difficult to go from good to great than it is to go from bad to good. Phil's done that better than anyone.

You failed to mention bad to Dynasty, which BW did. Something Phil will never, ever, even attempt to do. Again, I'm not selling Phil short- he's maximized his golden goose-opportunities, but IMO, he's done the least to become the most successful person on this list.
The Lakers were pretty bad when he took the reigns the 2nd time. Now, it wasn't the basement, but we were definitely bad.

Walsh had great players too Paul, and the one element that you're not mentioning is the salary cap. Walsh (and Eddie D) were able to keep some great teams intact, whereas both the Bulls and Laker rosters were considerably more fluid. That's also what distinguishes Jackson from Auerbach. But I agree that the "great players" argument has some merit. But I think many people simply discount him on that basis. I disagree with that argument. Two other coaches had Shaq/Kobe or Jordan/Pippen and didn't win. There have been plenty of NBA teams that had two great players and didn't win. (Stockton/Malone, Erving/Malone/Barkley/Cheeks, Thurmond/Barry/Russell) And now he has a ring with Kobe/Gasol.

As far as the GM element goes, IMO it's not an apples to apples comparison. Jackson never filled that capacity. We're just using different standards here. If I was using your standards, I would agree that the gap between Walsh & Jackson is much, much wider.

[ Edited by LA9erFan on Aug 3, 2009 at 14:18:11 ]
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The Lakers were pretty bad when he took the reigns the 2nd time. Now, it wasn't the basement, but we were definitely bad.

Walsh had great players too Paul, and the one element that you're not mentioning is the salary cap. Walsh (and Eddie D) were able to keep some great teams intact, whereas both the Bulls and Laker rosters were considerably more fluid. That's also what distinguishes Jackson from Auerbach. But I agree that the "great players" argument has some merit. But I think many people simply discount him on that basis. I disagree with that argument. Two other coaches had Shaq/Kobe or Jordan/Pippen and didn't win. There have been plenty of NBA teams that had two great players and didn't win. (Stockton/Malone, Erving/Malone/Barkley/Cheeks, Thurmond/Barry/Russell) And now he has a ring with Kobe/Gasol.

As far as the GM element goes, IMO it's not an apples to apples comparison. Jackson never filled that capacity. We're just using different standards here. If I was using your standards, I would agree that the gap between Walsh & Jackson is much, much wider.

Personally, I believe that Phil's' best work as a coach was when he came to LA (the 1st time). (Young, immature Kobe.)
I fully remember the day he was announced as the new coach. I KNEW what that meant for LA (multiple titles), and for the Warriors (solidifying another era as whipping-boy/bottom-feeders.) The 2nd go-round was made possible by one of the sickest "gift trades" imaginable, via a former laker GM, but I can't discredit PJ for that. Just incredibly fortuitous, yet again.

Walsh said, a team needs (potentially) 3 HOFers; 2, at the least, in order to be truly great. On a football team that's a VERY minute percentage of players on the roster. Phil's' had 2 HOFers per starting 5. (This last year possibly being his first exception, TBD.)

Also, just because a whopping two coaches had the opportunity, doesn't mean no one but Phil could do it.

The only person in sports who's had an easier opportunity to succeed, is....









(are you ready?)










.....Tiger's caddy.

  • Oscar
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 10,234
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by IWASATTHECATCH:
Pete, can you really place Phil above Walsh?

As much as I'd like to irritate you guys by saying yes...no, I wouldn't. But it would be very, very close because there's something to be said for sustained dominance, which is the only thing lacking from Walsh's resume since he only coached us for 10 years.

Walsh helped develop (or more accurately, further) an offense that changed the sport on both sides of the ball, and his coaching tree is incredible. Although he only coached for a decade, the mark he made is still part of the game today. Can't say that about Jackson.

However, too many fans just brush aside what Jackson's done, IMO. 10 titles in 18 years of coaching. 12 conference titles. "But he had great players". A lot of coaches have great players and don't win, and Walsh had great players too. Amongst Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, & Shaquille O'Neal, only one of them won a title without him (Shaq), and that was as the 2nd best player on a team with a HOF coach as well. (Pat Riley)

When Jackson replaced Doug Collins, the Bulls got better. By his second year, they were NBA champions, after consistently being the whipping boys of the Pistons & Celtics. (most people forget this) He got Jordan to buy into a system that took the ball out of his hands a lot more than Collins' offense, and into Pippen's. He also surrounded himself with quality assistant coaches, and by all reports knew how to delegate. Not all coaches can surrender their ego to that extent.

When he joined the Lakers they were the most talented roster in the league, yet had imploded in the playoffs in 3 consecutive years. Never even got the Finals. In his first year in LA, we went 67-15 and won the title. He successfully managed two alpha dogs to the tune of 3 consecutive NBA titles. If it was that easy...why couldn't other people do it?

Then you have his 2nd stint in LA. The Lakers were coming off of a 38-44 season, and the only significant roster change was Caron Butler for Kwame Brown (a downgrade in anyone's mind)...then the Lakers won 45 games and took the Suns to 7 games. Once the Lakers got a legit #2 guy (initially Bynum, and then Gasol after the trade), the Lakers were back in the Finals, and winning it all the next year. And Gasol isn't on par with Shaq, Kobe, MJ, or Pippen.

I think it's hard to differentiate Walsh's legacy as a talent evaluator from his legacy as a coach. He had great players too, but he brought them in. While he deserves credit for that, you can't draw a parallel to Phil Jackson, because Jackson never had that responsibility...and we are comparing COACHES here...not GMs.

Phil ain't quite Walsh, but don't sell him short. IMO, it's a lot more difficult to go from good to great than it is to go from bad to good. Phil's done that better than anyone.

...